Reply #157: Well, I can partially agree... [View All]

[Senator]

...that it's not simply a lack of being candid. And I'd also agree that an honest objection from Gore or Kerry would "challenge the legitimacy of the government." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But since you've gone beyond that limited context in defending Kerry, I must point out that the defense is just a further indictment of the damaging arrogance he and the other DC Dems display. You state "his case" quite well, but without any recognition that it is corrupt to the core.

It is another example of what I described in my earlier post: A self-serving pretense constructed out of euphemism.

The nation witnesses live on TV 15-hour poll-tax-lines for poor, brown (Dem) Americans and none for rich, white (Rep) voters. In a "third world" country int'l observers would have declared the result invalid on the spot. But what is the Kerry/DCDem/Euphemedia response?

- To say yes, there were "various irregularities." There may even have been some "glitches" too. And we've even had reports of some valid registrations getting "misdirected." Well, that doesn't sound so bad -- does it?

- To state almost as a mantra that it was an "extremely close" election. Setting aside the accuracy of that statement, what is the purpose of saying it was close?

- To conclude that we are entirely helpless to do anything unless it is "100% provable" that we'll be able to "change the result" (another mantra).

- To give assurances that we will "clean up" this mess sometime in the future. Which is nothing more than a rationalization for doing abolutely nothing now about the current problem.

Sorry, but this manipulative treatment of the voters is not part of the solution.

As a matter of fact, IT IS the problem.

--